Permeating the Membranes between Educational Levels

Over the past few years, there has been great dynamism in US education. Some of it was induced by technological changes, some by demographics, some by behaviors of youth, some by the pandemic.

Some changes are notable. Men are investing in higher education at falling rates; college campuses dominated by women are the norm. The cost of higher education, because of its dependence on human delivery, grows at rates exceeding other costs. Lower fertility rates of decades ago produce smaller entering cohorts of college students. As a result, small liberal arts colleges, with small classes, residential campuses, and limited endowments, face budget pressures. Acquisitions, mergers, and closures result.

But there is another phenomenon that seems less noticed. There are activities that are challenging the traditional boundaries of elementary schools, high schools, colleges, universities, and continuing education. Junior high students are taking high school courses. High school students are taking college courses. Undergraduates are taking graduate courses. Further, some degree programs for working adults are granting academic credit for life experiences that deliver competencies relevant to degrees.

By and large, however, our academic degree structures have not recognized the permeating of the traditional membranes among levels of education. Accreditation processes are conservative. Faculty are accustomed to traditional boundaries. Tuition is linked to course enrollments; granting credit for courses taken earlier may reduce revenue to the next level of education.

For example, it is typical that colleges limit the amount of credit transfers to count for completion of the undergraduate degree. One purpose is to eliminate granting credit from inferior educational experiences. It controls the uniformity of the curricular experiences of those granted a degree. But these policies also limit the amount of tuition foregone for each degree.

From the student (and their family’s) perspective, however, another question arises. If a high school student successfully completes college courses of similar content and sophistication as requirements to their college degree, why shouldn’t that be fully recognized in their bachelor’s degree?

Well, one reason proffered is more social than educational – a concern that a truncated (less than four-year) bachelor’s program harms the student. The four-year experience of an undergraduate, it is argued, nurtures the formation of character, values, and maturation not possible in a shorter time in college. In any case, the maturing brain of an 18-22 year old is ripe for experiences that can shape a lifetime. Giving more time in college might aid that development.

Let’s accept that argument for the moment. That proffered reason, however, doesn’t address why the college student shouldn’t be rewarded for graduate courses taken during their four years at a university. There are many first-year graduate courses that are taken by advanced undergraduates. Indeed, from a family perspective, could their financial investment in their child’s future be enhanced by acknowledging the porous membrane between undergraduate and graduate curricula?

These thoughts starts a train of thought about roles of different levels of education. What would happen if Georgetown increased its offering of undergraduate courses to high school students with the capacity to absorb their content? What would happen if we offered more flexible 4-year residential experiences for moving from undergraduate to graduate programs?

Could such redesigns offer undergraduates both a liberal education foundation and professional education of enhanced lifelong value? Would families be interested in investing the same amount of money but obtaining both a bachelor’s and master’s degree for their student? How disruptive would this idea become for the finances of bachelor’s and master’s programs? How would the job market react to such Master’s graduates?